PLAYBOOKTSF Playbook Structure for Each Characteristic As states perform their TSF self-assessments...

PLAYBOOK Version 1.2

January 28, 2020

Page i

VERSION HISTORY

Version Date Edit

1.0 January 14, 2020 N/A

1.1 January 15, 2020 Submission evidence in characteristic III.D Participating Communities edited to include instructions for those wishing to submit analyses and outreach plans.

1.2 January 28, 2020 Changes to I.A. (Foundational Evidence and Proficient Benchmark); further clarification around Evidence in all characteristics; Adjustments to III.B. to clarify that higher standards will be included in the NOFO and should be incorporated into the SOW, even though it is not being assessed this year; and adjustments to the wording of the benchmarks and evidence in III.D. to further clarify the options for submitting evidence or accepting FEMA-provided data.

Page ii

INTRODUCTION The Community Assistance Program–State Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) is a cooperative agreement that provides funding to states to support communities in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in implementing NFIP floodplain management activities. Through CAP-SSSE, states provide technical assistance and evaluate community performance in implementing NFIP requirements. They also work to implement actions that reduce the damage and costs from flooding across their state. CAP-SSSE helps meet the flood loss reduction goals of the NFIP by building state and community floodplain management expertise and capability, and leveraging state knowledge and expertise in working with communities.

The CAP-SSSE program partners with states to expand the NFIP’s ability to provide community services (education, monitoring, and enforcement) and build state capability for managing flood risk (prevention, preparedness, recovery, and mitigation) in support of the NFIP’s goals. States with advanced floodplain management capabilities conduct additional activities to create comprehensive and effective state floodplain management programs beyond administration of the NFIP. These states leverage their unique capabilities, relationships, and land use authorities to ensure that floodplain management guides development and redevelopment to reduce risk from flooding and to prevent increases in flooding potential.

The Tiered State Framework (TSF) In response to feedback from state partners, FEMA created the CAP-SSSE Tiered State Framework (TSF). The TSF helps FEMA recognize, invest in, and incentivize state efforts to develop the capabilities necessary to meet the goals of the CAP-SSSE program and grow a state’s broader floodplain management ability. The TSF and an aligned program funding methodology allow FEMA to:

• Increase transparency around state activities; • Enable a performance-based program allowing FEMA to fairly evaluate State

NFIP Coordinating Office strengths and areas of improvement; and • Establish a level playing field for CAP-SSSE to make judgements about the

resources that states may require to deliver upon the goals of the program.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the TSF establishes three tiers: Foundational, Proficient, and Advanced. A state’s tier is based on a two-step assessment of a state’s floodplain management program against a series of benchmarks at least every three years. A state’s tier assignment influences their annual scope of work (SOW) (beginning in 2020) and their funding (beginning in 2021). Significant strengths in a state’s TSF assessment enable special access to incentives such as additional funding, increased autonomy over workplans and strategies, and funding eligibility of certain non-traditional projects. Conversely, gaps or deficiencies in a state’s TSF assessment, coupled with their state-specific aspirations and goals, help determine the activities, performance metrics, training plans, reporting requirements, and subsequent funding levels to address those gaps.

FEMA uses characteristics and benchmarks across four categories to assess and assign states to a tier (see Figure 2 and Appendix A).

Figure 2 Four Categories of the TSF

Figure 1 CAP-SSSE State Tiers

Page iii

Each benchmark has a set of required evidence that the state must provide to demonstrate that it meets the benchmark. In this way, the TSF assessment provides a quantifiable and equitable approach to ensure that each state receiving CAP-SSSE funding possesses the necessary capacity and expertise, a history of satisfactory performance, and adequate plans, strategies, and partnerships to accomplish the work in the most efficient and effective manner.

The TSF Assessment and Assignment Process FEMA requires a TSF assessment from each state every three years, beginning in 2020 or upon first applying for the CAP-SSSE grant, whichever is most recent. States may also request an off-cycle TSF assessment if they desire (for example, if a state believes they meet the benchmarks for the next tier and would like to be assigned to that tier earlier than their next assessment cycle).

As Figure 3 shows, TSF assessments begin in/around January and are integrated into the grant application process. Validated TSF assessments and final tier assignments are submitted in the Non-Disaster Grants (ND Grants) system as an addendum to the state’s SOW.

Figure 3 TSF Assessment and Annual Grant Milestones

TSF assessments begin with a state self-assessment, which the FEMA Region validates. Both parties use the TSF assessment to inform SOW development and award considerations for the upcoming period of performance (PoP), integrating appropriate requirements and incentives driven by the state’s tier assignment. Where the state and the FEMA Region are inconsistent in their assessments of the state and unable to adjudicate those discrepancies at the Regional level, the case is forwarded to FEMA Headquarters for final determination of the state’s tier assignment.

States utilize the TSF Assessment Tool to perform self-assessments. The TSF Assessment Tool is an interactive Microsoft Excel-based form where a state selects the benchmarks that it meets and provides descriptive details about the required evidence for each. Based on the state’s benchmark selections, the tool calculates a score for each category (to aid in SOW development) and an overall score that automatically assigns the state to the corresponding tier. Foundational benchmarks receive one point, Proficient benchmarks receive two points, and Advanced benchmarks receive points. No state will perfectly align to every benchmark in any one tier, thus score ranges (Figure 4) determine a state’s tier assignment. The score ranges require a state to achieve most, but not all, of the benchmarks in the tier before they are assigned to that tier. It is critical to note that if a state is not able to reach the Foundational benchmark for any one characteristic, their overall tier assignment will be assessed at “Below Foundational” regardless of their performance on any of the other characteristics in the TSF.

Figure 4 TSF Score Ranges

Page iv

Using this TSF Playbook This TSF Playbook should be used in conjunction with the TSF Assessment Tool. The playbook has four chapters that align to the four TSF categories. As illustrated in Figure 5, each category chapter provides a detailed overview of each of the characteristics within that category, including the intention behind its inclusion in the TSF, the benchmarks that must be met for each tier, and the evidence required to prove that those benchmarks have, in fact, been met. Evidence submission and SOW development guidance is also included.

Figure 5. TSF Playbook Structure for Each Characteristic

As states perform their TSF self-assessments in the TSF Assessment Tool, they should use the categories and characteristics in this Playbook to validate benchmarks and determine what evidence to submit in support of their tier assignment.

Page v

CONTENTS

I. CAPACITY 1 I.A State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local Communities ..................................................................... 2 I.B State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State Owned Properties .............................................................. 3 I.C Financial Grant Management................................................................................................................................... 4 I.D Administrative Grant Management .......................................................................................................................... 5 I.E Ability to Overmatch .................................................................................................................................................. 6

II. CAPABILITY 7 II.A Investment in Professional Development ............................................................................................................... 8 II.B Communication with Communities on NFIP Topics ................................................................................................ 9 II.C Training Variety ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 II.D Process for Reviewing and Improving Model Floodplain Management Regulations ......................................... 11 II.E Substantial Damage Program ............................................................................................................................... 12

III. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 13 III.A Communities Engaged ........................................................................................................................................... 14 III.B Higher Standards Adoption ................................................................................................................................... 15 III.C Community Compliance Improvement ................................................................................................................. 16 III.D Percent of Participating Communities .................................................................................................................. 17

IV. PLANNING AND COORDINATION 18 IV.A Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products ..................................................................................................... 19 IV.B Coordination and Integrated Planning Across the State ..................................................................................... 20 IV.C Coordination with OFAs (other than FEMA) .......................................................................................................... 21 IV.D Coordination with Insurance Professionals .......................................................................................................... 22 IV.E Coordination and Integration into State Emergency Operations ........................................................................ 23 IV.F Optimized Use of Mitigation Funding for Priority Structures ............................................................................... 24

Summary Table of Characteristics and Benchmarks 25 Glossary 26

CAPACITY CHARACTERISTICS Page 1

I. CAPACITY The characteristics in this category demonstrate that states have the capacity to ensure that NFIP

requirements are met and maintained and that they manage the CAP-SSSE grant accordingly.

The Capacity category encompasses five characteristics:

• State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local Communities • State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State-Owned Properties • Financial Grant Management • Administrative Grant Management • Ability to Overmatch (non-Federal Funding)

The following subsections discuss each characteristic in detail.


I.A State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local Communities This characteristic intends to measure how a state ensures that communities adopt and enforce minimum NFIP requirements.

Foundational Proficient Advanced Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The state has enacted legislation

enabling communities to regulate development within floodprone areas that meet minimum NFIP and state standards

AND • The state consistently works with

communities to specifically address violations and other program issues found during Community Assistance Visits (CAVs)/Community Assistance Contacts (CACs) or other engagements.

• The state meets the Foundational benchmark

AND • The state has policies and

procedures in place that define the point at which a community moves from the “follow-up” phase to the “enforcement” phase of compliance and the case is referred to FEMA for enforcement action.

• The state meets the Proficient benchmark AND • The state has written laws or policies and

procedures in place that provide for state-led enforcement actions (e.g., penalties or restrictions that are within the state’s authority, grants withholding actions, etc.) prior to referring compliance cases to FEMA for suspension or probation.

Evidence States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. Examples of such evidence are listed below. All examples are

potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: One of the following: • A PDF or a link to an online version of

the state executive order (EO)/law/statute meeting at least minimum NFIP standards

• A model ordinance that meets the minimum standards

• Foundational evidence PLUS one or more of the following: • A standard operating procedure

(SOP) for identifying and mitigating community NFIP violations, with milestones/ thresholds for state follow-up and enforcement referral

• Evidence of CAV/CAC records or correspondence sent to FEMA after the state follow-up period with a community (via email or other method)

• Letter templates advising a community of violation, corrective action, and timelines for action by state or by FEMA

• Foundational and Proficient evidence PLUS one or more of the following: • A PDF or a link to an online version of the

state EO/law/statute reflecting higher standards (i.e., standards and ordinances that exceed NFIP minimum requirements) and enforcement authority.

• An SOP for identifying and mitigating community NFIP and/or state higher standards violations with milestones/ thresholds for follow-up and enforcement by the state.

• Letter templates for state-initiated compliance action, advising a community of violation(s) and future enforcement action(s) by the state.

Submission Instructions For the FY2020 grant year, email all documentation to the Regional CAP Coordinator using the following naming convention:

XX_Capacity_A_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_A_Foundational_STATE_EO

XX_Capacity_A_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_A_Proficient_CAV_email

XX_Capacity_A_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_A_Advanced_stateSOP


I.B State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State-Owned Properties This characteristic intends to measure how a state enforces NFIP requirements for all state-owned (and managed, as applicable) properties.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The state has enacted legislation

requiring at least NFIP minimums for state-owned or -managed development activities.

• The state meets the Foundational benchmark

AND • The state has the authority and written

policies and procedures in place to monitor permitting and enforce compliance of state-owned or managed development actions

• The state meets the Proficient benchmark

AND • The state has a statewide higher

standard for state-owned or managed development and a record of mitigating non-compliant state-owned or managed structures


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: • A PDF or a link to an online version of

the state EO/law/statute requiring state agencies, institutions, and properties to meet at least minimum NFIP standards

• Foundational evidence PLUS one or more of the following: • An SOP for identifying violations in state

development activities (e.g., permitting audit of state-owned properties)

• State Assessment Data Call records or other records of alerting FEMA Regional office about violations connected to state activities

• Foundational and Proficient evidence PLUS one or more of the following: • A PDF or a link to an online version of

state EO/law/statute requiring state agencies, institutions, and properties to meet statewide higher standard(s)

• An SOP or actual records of state-led mitigation of violations connected to state development activities


XX_Capacity_B_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_B_Foundational_STATE_EO

XX_Capacity_B_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_B_ Proficient_CAV_email

XX_Capacity_B_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_B_Advanced_Violation_SOP


I.C Financial Grant Management This characteristic intends to measure that the state has the capacity to meet the financial requirements of the CAP grant.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The state has deobligated 30% or less

of its cumulative funding over the past three years (i.e., the total deobligated funds divided by the total awards over the past three years does not exceed 30%).

• The state has deobligated 15% or less of its cumulative funding over the past three years (i.e., the total deobligated funds divided by the total awards over the past three years does not exceed 15%).

• The state has had no deobligations over the past three years.

Evidence FEMA will pull supporting evidence from government databases and share it with the state for validation before assigning a

corresponding tier for this characteristic. • PARS Report from ND Grants • PARS Report from ND Grants • PARS Report from ND Grants

Submission Instructions The Regional CAP Coordinator will provide this data to states via the IFMIS reports that denote obligations and deobligations.

• No submission is required IFMIS, CIS, PARS, and ND Grants are all official FEMA systems of record. Though it is FEMA’s intention to use only the records in these systems to demonstrate performance at these benchmarks, we do realize that data entry errors or other reporting limitations could be present. If you find an error in your FEMA-provided data, you may submit evidence to support this claim:

• Email evidence to support its position to the Regional CAP Coordinator • Use the subject line: I.C: Financial Grant Management Discrepancy • List the information provided by FEMA, the tier the state believes it should be, and the supporting evidence.


I.D Administrative Grant Management This characteristic intends to measure that the state can meet the administrative requirements of the grant.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The state submits a Notice of Funding

Opportunity (NOFO) application, quarterly performance reports, a final ND grants application, and satisfies other grant award administrative requirements (as needed) by deadlines with no more than three late submissions; PoP extensions over the past three years do not exceed nine months in any one year.

• The state submits a NOFO application, quarterly performance reports, a final ND grants application, and satisfies other grant award administrative requirements (as needed) by deadlines with no more than one late submission; PoP extensions over the past three years do not exceed three months in any one year.

• The state submits a NOFO application, quarterly performance reports, a final ND grants application, and satisfies other grant award administrative requirements (as needed) by deadlines; no more than one extension of fewer than three months in the past three years.

Evidence The Regional CAP Coordinator will pull supporting evidence from ND Grants and other government databases and share it with the

state for validation before assigning a corresponding tier for this characteristic. • SF424 application submission date PLUS • All quarterly report submission dates

over the last two years PLUS • Final ND Grants application submission

date (inclusive of final SOW)

• SF424 application submission date PLUS • All quarterly report submission dates



• SF424 application submission date PLUS • All quarterly report submission dates



Submission Instructions The Regional CAP Coordinators will provide this data to the states via records from ND Grants. States also have access to this

information and may verify it. • No submission is required IFMIS, CIS, PARS, and ND Grants are all official FEMA systems of record. Though it is FEMA’s intention to use only the records in these systems to demonstrate performance at these benchmarks, we do realize that data entry errors or other reporting limitations could be present. If you find an error in your FEMA-provided data, you may submit evidence to support this claim:

• Email evidence to support its position to the Regional CAP Coordinator • Use the subject line: I.D: Administrative Grant Management Discrepancy • List the information provided by FEMA, the tier the state believes it should be, and the supporting evidence.


I.E Ability to Overmatch This characteristic intends to measure that the state has additional floodplain management program capacity outside of CAP-SSSE funded activities and staff.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The three-year average cost match is

equal to 25% as required by the grant. • The three-year average cost match is

greater than 25%. • The three-year average cost match is

greater than 50%.

Evidence States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. Examples of such evidence are listed below.

PLEASE NOTE that while there is no restriction on the types of costs allowed for the non-federal cost match requirement, in-kind

contributions must specifically adhere to the “Funding Restrictions” and “Eligible Activities” sections of the CAP-SSSE NOFO. • This data will come from ND Grants and

be provided by FEMA • Part of this data will come from ND

Grants and be provided by FEMA

• If a state can demonstrate a cost match above 25% outside of what is tracked in ND Grants, they may provide supplemental evidence, such as the number of employees, hours worked, or FTE percentage applied to CAP activities in the last three years, multiplied by the employees’ hourly loaded wage (i.e., wage with indirect costs applied)

• Part of this data will come from ND Grants and be provided by FEMA

• If a state can demonstrate a cost match above 50% outside of what is tracked in ND Grants, they may provide supplemental evidence, such as the number of employees, hours worked, or FTE percentage applied to CAP activities in the last three years, multiplied by the employees’ hourly loaded wage (i.e., wage with indirect costs applied)

Submission Instructions Email any documentation of overmatch outside of what is listed in ND Grants to the Regional CAP Coordinator using the following

naming convention: XX_Capacity_E_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_E_Foundational_overmatch

XX_Capacity_E_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_E_Proficient_overmatch

XX_Capacity_E_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capacity_E_Advanced_overmatch

CAPABILITY CHARACTERISTICS Page 7

II. CAPABILITY The characteristics in this category demonstrate that states enhance the professional expertise of

their staff and can adequately educate communities on floodplain management topics.

The Capability category encompasses five characteristics:

• Investment in Professional Development • Communication with Communities on NFIP Topics • Training Variety • Process for Reviewing and Improving Model Floodplain Management Regulations • Substantial Damage Program



II.A Investment in Professional Development This characteristic intends to measure that the NFIP State Coordinator and floodplain management program staff have the appropriate credentials and are enhancing their learning/education through formalized training.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The designated State NFIP Coordinator

has education/experience in a floodplain management profession

• For every full-time equivalent (FTE) covered by the CAP grant, the state can show eight verifiable hours of floodplain management-related training (i.e., floodplain management and other related trainings) per three-year cycle.

• For every FTE covered by the CAP grant, the state can show the same number of CFMs and/or advanced professional certifications in sciences, engineering, planning, building construction, architecture

AND • Those certifications are supported by

eight hours of continuing education per year


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: One of the following: • Degree/certification in land, water, or

environmental management; building sciences; public works; geography; hydrology; or engineering related field (submit photocopy of degree, certification, or transcript)

• Proof of at least two years of experience in any field listed above

• Resume or proof of employment with job description

One of the following: • Documentation of continuing education

units (CEUs)/continuing education courses (CECs) from a relevant certification organization, totaling eight for each FTE covered by the CAP grant for the most recent assessment cycle

• Flyers or materials stating CEC/CEU information for trainings attended or led, totaling eight for each FTE covered by the CAP grant

• Hours spent being a mentor or mentee in a formal mentoring program (i.e. ASFPM mentoring program) totaling eight for each FTE covered by the CAP grant

• A combination of the above totaling eight for each FTE covered by the CAP grant

• Proficient evidence PLUS • Documentation of one certification from

a certification organization OR advanced degree paperwork (submit photocopy of degree, certification, or transcript) for each FTE funded by the CAP grant


XX_Capability_A_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_A_Foundational_Resume

XX_Capability_A_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_A_Proficient_CEC_list_year##

XX_Capability_A_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_A_Advanced_CFM_Cert


II.B Communication with Communities on NFIP Topics This characteristic intends to measure how a state is engaging communities regarding risk reduction programs and topics.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below:

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office communicates with communities during grant-related touchpoints (technical assistance, CAV/CAC touchpoints, etc.) each year.

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office communicates with all communities in the state on at least a quarterly basis each year.

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office has a strategic outreach or communications plan and can provide documentation that the plan is implemented (such as brochures, a website, newsletters, outreach calendar, etc.)


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: • If a state does not qualify for Proficient

or Advanced, FEMA will pull supporting evidence from FEMA records and previously submitted quarterly reports to support the Foundational tier for this characteristic

• Evidence of four or more push communications (at least one per quarter) with all communities in the state, such as newsletters, list serve/emails, or other evidence

• Proficient evidence PLUS • Evidence of state’s communications or

outreach plan PLUS • Evidence of implementing activities

listed in the Plan


No submission is required if a state does not meet Proficient or Advanced; the Foundational tier will be assigned.

XX_Capability_B_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_B_Proficient_Q4Newsletter

XX_Capability_B_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Examples: MD_Capability_B_Advanced_OutreachPlan MD_Capability_B_Advanced_OutreachAction_7


II.C Training Variety This characteristic intends to measure that the state offers a variety of trainings covering a range of topics.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The state provides training covering two

different NFIP topics* in the three-year cycle.

*A basic floodplain management “101” course may count as one of the trainings. Any additional training is defined as four to six hours on a specialized floodplain management topic or other topic (such as mapping, insurance, CRS, etc.)

• The state provides training covering three or four different NFIP topics* in the three-year cycle.

* A basic floodplain management “101” course may count as one of the trainings. Each additional training is defined as four to six hours on a specialized floodplain management topic or other topic (such as mapping, insurance, CRS, etc.)

The state provides training covering at least five different NFIP topics* in the three-year cycle. * A basic floodplain management “101” course may count as one of the trainings. Each additional training is defined as four to six hours on a specialized floodplain management topic or other topic (such as mapping, insurance, CRS, etc.)


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: One of the following: • Training plan • Records of training classes held,

including attendee sign-in sheets (or similar) with dates and topic titles

One of the following: • Training plan • Records of training classes held,


One of the following: • Training plan • Records of training classes held,



XX_Capability_C_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_C_Foundational_TrainingList

XX_Capability_C_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_C_Proficient_TrainingList

XX_Capability_C_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_C_Advanced_TrainingList


II.D Process for Reviewing and Improving Model Floodplain Management Regulations This characteristic intends to measure that the state has a process in place to ensure that, through the use of appropriately updated and tailorable model ordinances, it is satisfying the requirement from 14 CFR 60.25 to guide and assist county and municipal public bodies and agencies in developing, implementing, and maintaining local floodplain management regulations.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The State NFIP Coordinating Office

provides a model ordinance that meets at least minimum NFIP standards.

• The state meets the Foundational benchmark;

AND • The state maintains and updates one

or more model ordinances which take into account any changes in the state or local regulatory environment;

AND • The state performs model ordinance

review and updates (if needed) at least every five years.

• The state meets Foundational benchmark;

AND • The state maintains and updates a

collection of model ordinances which take into account any changes in the state or local regulatory environment and incorporate higher standards where possible and practicable;

AND • The state performs model ordinance

review and updates (if needed) at least every three years.


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: • A state model ordinance that meets

NFIP minimums, with date of last update and instructions to communities included in document.

• Foundational evidence PLUS • Process documentation/SOP that

shows a five-year update cycle, including the dates, findings, and descriptions of updates performed during the last model ordinance review

• Foundational evidence PLUS • Process documentation/SOP that shows

a three-year update cycle and integration of higher standards, including the dates, findings, and descriptions of updates performed during the last model ordinance review


XX_Capability_D_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_D_Foundational_Model_Ordinance,

XX_Capability_D_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_D_Proficient_Model_Review_SOP

XX_Capability_D_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_D_Advanced_Model_Review_SOP


II.E Substantial Damage Program This characteristic intends to measure that the state is working towards or has implemented statewide Substantial Damage Plan(s) and encourages communities to adopt Substantial Damage Plans where it makes sense to do so.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The state is in the process of

developing a State Substantial Damage Plan.

• The state has a documented State Substantial Damage Plan in place.

• The state meets Proficient threshold AND • Substantial Damage Plans are in place

for targeted communities (to be determined jointly by state and Regional CAP Coordinator)


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: One of the following: • Draft State Substantial Damage Plan • Draft State Substantial Damage Plan

outline • Documentation of meetings or

workgroup sessions to begin developing State Substantial Damage Plan

• State Substantial Damage Plan • State Substantial Damage Plan PLUS • Local Substantial Damage Plans for

targeted communities


XX_Capability_E_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_E_Foundational_WorkgroupSummaryQ4

XX_Capability_E_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_E_Proficient_StateSDPlan

XX_Capability_E_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_Capability_E_Advanced_LocalSDPlan_Target1

PERFORMANCE MEASURES CHARACTERISTICS Page 13

III. PERFORMANCE MEASURES The characteristics in this category demonstrate that the State NFIP Coordinating Office has a history

of performing at or above expectations while advancing the goals of the NFIP and effectively administers the programmatic requirements of the CAP grant.

The Performance Measures category encompasses four characteristics:

• Communities Engaged • Higher Standards Adoption • Community Compliance Improvement • Percent of Participating Communities



III.A Communities Engaged This characteristic intends to measure that the state engages with an agreed-upon number of communities each year.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The state meets the “Expected” target

for Communities Engaged in at least two of the past three years.

There is no Proficient benchmark for this characteristic

• The state meets the “Excellence” target for Communities Engaged in at least two of the past three years

Evidence FEMA will pull supporting evidence from FEMA records and share it with the state for validation before assigning a corresponding

tier for this characteristic. • Community Information System (CIS)

data reports (combined CAV/CAC, GTA, Ordinance Review, and Workshop reports to determine number of communities engaged in the FY)

• State Report Cards (i.e., state performance targets and final results)

• CIS data reports (combined CAV/CAC, GTA, Ordinance Review, and Workshop reports to determine number of communities engaged in the FY)


Submission Instructions FEMA HQ will provide CIS report data and report cards to states.


• Email evidence to support its position to the Regional CAP Coordinator

• Use the subject line: III.A: Communities Engaged Discrepancy

• List the information provided by FEMA, the tier the state believes it should be, and the supporting evidence.


• Email evidence to support its position to the Regional CAP Coordinator

• Use the subject line: III.A: Communities Engaged Discrepancy

• List the information provided by FEMA, the tier the state believes it should be, and the supporting evidence.


III.B Higher Standards Adoption This characteristic intends to measure that the state influences an agreed-upon number of communities to take action to exceed the minimum regulatory requirements each year.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: • The state meets the “Expected” target

for Higher Standards Adoption in at least two of the past three years


• The state meets the “Excellence” target for Higher Standards Adoption in at least two of the past three years

Evidence FEMA will pull supporting evidence from FEMA records and share it with the state for validation before assigning a corresponding

tier for this characteristic • Custom CIS data query (which

participating communities in the state have a more restrictive ordinance)


• Custom CIS data query (which participating communities in the state have a more restrictive ordinance)


Submission Instructions For the FY20 grant year, this characteristic does not require submission of evidence since the state will not be evaluated on it. In the

future, FEMA HQ will provide CIS report data and report cards to states. • None for FY20. This measure has only

recently been implemented and there is not a full year’s worth of performance data upon which to be assessed.

• None for FY20. This measure has only recently been implemented and there is not a full year’s worth of performance data upon which to be assessed.


III.C Community Compliance Improvement This characteristic intends to measure that a state influences an agreed upon number of communities to improve their compliance with NFIP requirements each year.

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below:

• The state meets the “Expected” target for Community Compliance Improvement in at least two of the past three years.


The state meets the “Excellence” target for Community Compliance Improvement in at least two of the past three years.


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: • Future CAV/CAC documentation

methods • Future CAV/CAC documentation

methods

Submission Instructions For the FY20 grant year, this characteristic does not require submission of evidence since the state will not be evaluated on it.

None for FY20. This measure will be implemented in FY21.

None for FY20. This measure will be implemented in FY21.


III.D Percent of Participating Communities This characteristic intends to measure that the state is actively working to increase the percentage of communities with mapped risk that participate in the NFIP.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the target via the FEMA-provided data in bullet A. OR they can meet the descriptions outlined in both bullets B. and C.

This characteristic has no Foundational benchmark.

Use A, or prove both B and C • A. At least 80% of communities with mapped risk

are participating in the NFIP at the time the data is pulled (FEMA-provided data)

• B. The State NFIP Coordinating Office has completed an analysis of the non-participating communities within the last three years

• C. The State NFIP Coordinating Office has conducted outreach to all non-participating communities at least once in the last three years

Use A, or prove both B and C • A. At least 90% of communities with mapped risk are

participating in the NFIP at the time the data is pulled (FEMA-provided data)

• B. The State NFIP Coordinating Office has completed an analysis of the non-participating communities within the last three years

• C. The State NFIP Coordinating Office has a written action plan for expanding community participation and conducts outreach to all non-participating communities at least once per year

Evidence States may choose to use the FEMA-provided data and not submit anything OR they may submit sufficient evidence as outlined.

• Use CIS participating communities report (provided by FEMA)

OR submit all of the following: • Analysis of the non-participating communities and

their reasoning for not joining the NFIP, including the date that the analysis was conducted

• Documentation of outreach (email blasts, letters, etc.) to all non-participating communities in the state in the last three-year period (can be pulled from CIS-GTA Report)

• Use CIS participating communities report (provided by FEMA)

OR submit all of the following: • Analysis of the non-participating communities and

their reasoning for not joining the NFIP, including the date that the analysis was conducted

• A state action plan for expanding community NFIP participation

• Documentation of outreach (email, letters, etc.) to all non-participating communities in the state in the last year (can be pulled from CIS-GTA Report)

Submission Instructions FEMA HQ will provide CIS report data to states. Email all supplemental documentation to the Regional CAP Coordinator using the

following naming convention: • No submission is required if a State uses the

tier assignment from the FEMA-provided data.

Those who are ‘below foundational’ may choose to submit the analysis and outreach documentation outlined above. Example: MD_Performance_D_Proficient_Outreach

• No submission is required if a State uses the tier assignment from the FEMA-provided data.

Those who are ‘below foundational’ or ‘proficient’ may choose to submit the analysis, outreach documentation, and state action plan outlined above. Example: MD_Performance_D_Advanced_ActionPlan

PLANNING AND COORDINATION CHARACTERISTICS Page 18

IV. PLANNING AND COORDINATION The characteristics in this category demonstrate that the State NFIP Coordinator’s Office successfully coordinates across agencies to ensure that floodplain management and insurance is integrated into

the state's priorities.

The Performance Measures category encompasses six characteristics:

• Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products • Coordination and Integrated Planning Across the State • Coordination with OFAs (other than FEMA) • Coordination with Insurance Professionals • Coordination and Integration into State Emergency Operations • Optimized Use of Mitigation Funding for Priority Structures



IV.A Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products This characteristic intends to measure that the state increases awareness and understanding of flood risks in its communities by participating in the delineation of riverine and coastal flood-prone areas, whenever possible, and disseminating flood risk data and information.



participates in providing FEMA Risk Analysis products to communities

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office coordinates/collaborates with other state programs/agencies to utilize data

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office provides flood risk data to the public and communities using state-facilitated GIS technology


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: One of the following: • Meeting minutes/summary (CCO/Open

House/Resilience/ or other meeting where products are presented to communities) with the date, location, and attendee list

• Project documents showing NFIP Coordinator Office representation in mapping projects

• Foundational evidence PLUS • A document that includes a list of data

(with descriptions) from other state agencies/programs utilized in flood hazard mapping products (i.e. erosion mapping, USGS or NOAA gauges)

• Foundational evidence PLUS • The link to the state website that

disseminates flood risk data for public consumption


XX_PlanningCoordination_A_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_A_Foundational_MeetingNotes

XX_PlanningCoordination_A_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_A_Proficient_DataList

XX_PlanningCoordination_A_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_A_Advanced_Website


IV.B Coordination and Integrated Planning Across the State This characteristic intends to measure that the State NFIP Coordinating Office is integrated with hazard mitigation planning activities across the state.



reviews/provides information as requested by the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) to influence mitigation

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office participates in writing and/or /submits recommendations to the State Hazard Mitigation Plan and other related plans integrating floodplain management issues

• The state’s floodplain management priorities are integrated into other state plans (i.e., State Hazard Mitigation Plans)


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: One of the following: • Meeting minutes/participant lists • Email correspondence that details

requests from the SHMO as well as input provided

• Other evidence of coordination

One of the following: • Evidence of formal input into State

Hazard Mitigation Plan, which could be in the format of emails, letters, or feedback submitted

• A list of meetings attended (with dates) where floodplain management input was provided to a plan

• A letter from the primary authoring agency of the plan that details the input that they received

• The most recent state plan (or opportunity to submit updates) with floodplain management priorities highlighted (i.e. Hazard Mitigation Plan, Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, etc.)


XX_PlanningCoordination_B_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_B_Foundational_EmailToSHMO

XX_PlanningCoordination_B_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_B_Proficient_PlanInputEmail

XX_PlanningCoordination_B_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_B_Advanced_StateHMP


IV.C Coordination with Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) (other than FEMA) This characteristic intends to measure that the State NFIP Coordinating Office is building relationships with OFAs in advance of and outside of flood events.



coordinates annually with two federal agencies other than FEMA on floodplain management issues

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office coordinates annually with three federal agencies other than FEMA on floodplain management issues

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office coordinates annually with more than three federal agencies other than FEMA on floodplain management issues

Evidence States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. An example of such evidence is listed below:

• For each federal agency a State NFIP Coordinating Office coordinates with, submit a document with the following: – Date of last meeting with the agency – The agency name – Full name, title, and email address of

your primary POC – Agenda/content of the meeting

• For each federal agency a State NFIP Coordinating Office coordinates with, submit a document with the following – Date of last meeting with the agency – The agency name – Full name, title, and email address of


• For each federal agency a State NFIP Coordinating Office coordinates with, submit a document with the following: – Date of last meeting with the agency – The agency name – Full name, title, and email address of



XX_PlanningCoordination_C_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_C_Foundational_FederalCoordination

XX_PlanningCoordination_C_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_C_Proficient_FederalCoordination

XX_PlanningCoordination_C_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_C_Advanced_FederalCoordination


IV.D Coordination with Insurance Professionals This characteristic intends to measure that the State NFIP Coordinating Office encourages and supports the flood insurance aspects of the NFIP within the state.



actively collaborates with Regional Flood Insurance Liaison (RFIL)

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office collaborates with insurance professionals on joint flood insurance initiatives or actively engages in insurance agent training and professional development at least once per year for the last three years.

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office collaborates on a statewide initiative with state flood insurance commissioner at least once per year for the last three years.


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: • Documentation of state-led

collaboration with the RFIL (emails, call logs, meeting minutes, etc.)

• Foundational evidence PLUS one or more of the following: • Insurance agent training records • Meeting minutes/summaries and dates

of collaborative efforts with insurance professionals, including organization name and contact information

• Deliverables, pamphlets, or materials developed in conjunction with insurance professionals

• Foundational evidence PLUS one or more of the following: • Meeting minutes/summaries and dates • Deliverables developed jointly • Email correspondence on the initiative • Letter from the state insurance

commissioner on the initiative, which details the collaborative effort and state NFIP role

• Deliverables, pamphlets, or materials developed in coordination with state insurance commissioner

Submission Instructions For the FY2020 grant year, email all documentation should be submitted via email to the Regional CAP Coordinator using the

following naming convention: XX_PlanningCoordination_D_Foundational_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_D_Foundational_RFIL

XX_PlanningCoordination_D_Proficient_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_D_Proficient_Coordination

XX_PlanningCoordination_D_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_D_Advanced_Coordination


IV.E Coordination and Integration into State Emergency Operations This characteristic intends to measure that the State NFIP Coordinating Office understands if/when/how it fits into the state’s Emergency Management Center (EOC) operations and procedures.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: There is no Foundational benchmark for this characteristic

• The State NFIP Coordinating Office has regular coordination with the Emergency Management Office (EMO) and collaborates in a post-disaster environment

• State floodplain management participates at the EOC, is used as a resource, and/or provides subject matter expertise as part of emergency operations or post-disaster support


potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: One of the following:

• Meeting minutes/summary and a participant list

• Email correspondence • Other documented evidence of

coordination with EMO, for example a signed letter from someone at the EMO which details the collaboration with the State NFIP Coordinating Office

• Documentation of a designated position in the EOC (for example: a plan/annex that assigns the role, screenshot from WebEOC, etc.)


XX_PlanningCoordination_E_Proficient_title ((where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_E_Proficient_ParticipantList

XX_PlanningCoordination_E_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_E_Advanced_EOCdocumentation


IV.F Optimized Use of Mitigation Funding for Priority Structures This characteristic intends to measure that funding is prioritized and used to mitigate priority structures impacted by flooding in the state.


In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: There is no Foundational benchmark for this characteristic


• The State NFIP Coordinating Office participates with the SHMO in activities to mitigate state priority properties, such as substantially damaged structures, repetitive loss/severe repetitive loss (RL/SRL) properties, floodway structures, violations, compliance and mitigation of state-owned structures, etc., and creates annual reports of these mitigation activities

Evidence States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. An examples of such evidence is listed below. All examples are

potential options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required: • Demonstration that grants (from FEMA, and from

other relevant grant sources) are mitigating priority flood prone properties or areas; for example: – A table listing the state’s current priority

properties, and any active/recently completed grants relevant to such properties.

– For each relevant grant, a recent quarterly report or the grant’s SOW to support the grant linkage to priority properties or areas.

PLUS • Annual report of the mitigation activities


XX_PlanningCoordination_F_Advanced_title (where XX is your state’s abbreviation) (where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you) Example: MD_PlanningCoordination_F_Advanced_MitFunding

Summary Table of Characteristics and Benchmarks Page 25

SUMMARY TABLE OF CHARACTERISTICS AND BENCHMARKS

Category and Intent Characteristic FOUNDATIONAL

Benchmark PROFICIENT Benchmark

ADVANCED Benchmark

CAPACITY

States ensure minimum NFIP requirements are met and enforced. States meet grant requirements of 2 CFR 200 and the NOFO.

State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local Communities Regulations meet minimum standards Enforcement sent to FEMA Enforcement is state-led State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State-Owned Properties Regulations meet minimum standards Enforcement sent to FEMA Enforcement is state-led Financial Grant Management 90% mapped communities participate or non-participating communities are understood

and engaged with an action plan in place PLANNING AND COORDINATION

States develop a working relationship with SHMO and other state and Federal Offices that have impact on floodplain management to create a coordinated effort for communities before, during and after disasters.

Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products Provide FEMA Risk Analysis products to communities Utilize data from other agencies Delivers data via state-facilitated GIS

technology

Coordination and Integrated Planning across the State Coordinates with SHMO Submits formal input on State Hazard Mitigation Plan Floodplain management targets included in

State Hazard Mitigation Plan Coordination with Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) Coordinate with 2 agencies Coordinate with 3 agencies Coordinate with >3 agencies

Coordination with Insurance Professionals State-led RIFL coordination Agent training or collaboration Collaborate on statewide initiative with state flood insurance commissioner Coordination and Integration into State Emergency Operations No Foundational requirement Coordinate with EMO Integrated into emergency operations

Optimized use of Mitigation Funding for Priority Structures No Foundational requirement No Proficient requirement Floodplain management targets funded for mitigation

Glossary Page 26

GLOSSARY CAC: Community Assistance Contacts

CAP-SSSE: Community Assistance Program – State Support Services Element

CAV: Community Assistance Visits

CEC: Continuing education course

CEU: Continuing education unit

CFM: Certified Floodplain Manager

CIS: Community Information System

CRS: Community Rating System (CRS)

EMO: Emergency Management Office

EO: Executive Order

EOC: Emergency Operations Center

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency

FTE: Full-time equivalent

GIS: Geographic Information System

HMP: Hazard Mitigation Plan

ND Grants: Non-disaster grants

NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOFO: Notice of Funding Opportunity

OFA: Other Federal Agency

PARS: Payment and Reporting System

POC: Point of contact

PoP: Period of Performance

RFIL: Regional Flood Insurance Liaison

RL/SRL: Repetitive loss/severe repetitive loss

SD: Substantial damage

SHMO: State Hazard Mitigation Officer

SOP: Standard operating procedure

SOW: Statement of Work

TSF: Tiered State Framework

USGS: United States Geological Survey

IntroductionThe Tiered State Framework (TSF)The TSF Assessment and Assignment ProcessUsing this TSF PlaybookI. CAPACITY 1I. CAPACITY 1I. CAPACITY 1II. CAPABILITY 7II. CAPABILITY 7II. CAPABILITY 7III. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 13III. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 13III. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 13IV. PLANNING AND COORDINATION 18IV. PLANNING AND COORDINATION 18IV. PLANNING AND COORDINATION 18I. CAPACITYI.A State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local CommunitiesI.B State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State-Owned PropertiesI.C Financial Grant ManagementI.D Administrative Grant ManagementI.E Ability to Overmatch

II. CAPABILITYII.A Investment in Professional DevelopmentII.B Communication with Communities on NFIP TopicsII.C Training VarietyII.D Process for Reviewing and Improving Model Floodplain Management RegulationsII.E Substantial Damage Program

III. PERFORMANCE MEASURESIII.A Communities EngagedIII.B Higher Standards AdoptionIII.C Community Compliance ImprovementIII.D Percent of Participating Communities

IV. PLANNING AND COORDINATIONIV.A Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness ProductsIV.B Coordination and Integrated Planning Across the StateIV.C Coordination with Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) (other than FEMA)IV.D Coordination with Insurance ProfessionalsIV.E Coordination and Integration into State Emergency OperationsIV.F Optimized Use of Mitigation Funding for Priority StructuresAppendix A. Summary Table of Characteristics and BenchmarksAppendix B. Glossary

PLAYBOOKTSF Playbook Structure for Each Characteristic As states perform their TSF self-assessments...

Documents

Transcript of PLAYBOOKTSF Playbook Structure for Each Characteristic As states perform their TSF self-assessments...